In addition to providing much needed jobs for the unemployed in the Commonwealth, the Representatives believe that the state can immediately receive tax revenues that would in turn boost an already struggling economy within Massachusetts.
The proposed measure is garnering party support. “I believe that this is an important question that needs to be answered”, said Minority Leader Brad Jones. “Upon clarification, this could potentially be the framework for and thus facilitate debate about expanded gaming in Massachusetts.”
Additionally, Representative D’Emilia said, “The track and management that is in place in Raynham have long proven themselves as a viable business partner in the community. Anything that I can do to bring jobs back to the 8th Plymouth district is something that I am willing to see through to the end.”
The order was offered during a Full Formal session.
###
The Las Vegas Night statute is here.
And the Attorney General’s Office has a Q & A on the subject on its website.
The press release, you’ll notice, isn’t entirely clear as to how slot machines, the legality of which was the main preoccupation of the Legislature last session, have been legal all along.
Maybe a couple of the bumps in the road?
In addition to the facts that the “Las Vegas law” is limited to non-profit organizations, no organization can run more than 3 bazaars a year, no bazaar can last more than five hours, and nobody helping to run the bazaar can be paid for the work, there’s a limit on the cash prize that can be awarded. It’s $25.
Who among us would not drive to the nearest racetrack for a chance to win that jackpot?
Now. Tell me, what are the prize and frequency regulations for Indian tribes and government entities? Same schedule, different schedule, what?
<
p>Do not misunderstand – I am against slots, I am against casinos, I’m iffy about the lottery, for personal reasonons like not wanting to teach kids that you can get something for nothing.
<
p>But as a legal argument, it’s intriguing.
Good news, bad news. The good news is that if slot machines already are legal under the charitable gaming law (see my op-ed, “Charting a Middle Course on Casinos” in Boston Globe in 2007), then they have the potential to generate tens of millions of dollars annually for charitable organizations and the human services they provide. The charitable gaming law also provides an existing 5% tax on such revenues for the Lottery, all of which is distributed as additional local aid. The charitable gaming law is an exception to our prohibition on gaming, which is why you see roulette, craps, poker and other table games at Las Vegas Night fundraisers. The statute doesn’t appear to prohibit slots and the only statute banning slots refers to mechanical,drum-type devices rather than electronic slot machines. The bad news is that charity slots are completely unregulated in terms of payouts to customers, the charitable solicitation share that can be claimed by any facility that operates charity slots, and locations of slots in the state. If legal, the only question for the Legislature is whether to regulate them, such as confining them to racetrack venues (separate from racetrack facilities per existing law that restricts gaming at otherwise licensed gaming facilities). We proposed that the House seek an opinion of the AG on this question and the proposal was referred to the Rules Committee as a late-filed bill. No surprise we didn’t have unanimous consent, but I’ll be surprised if Rules doesn’t report it out in the event there is no movement in the next six months on slots at racetracks. We’ll see.
There are many small casinos already operating in NH, one at the Dog track that offer charitable table games many days a month.
and the ideas contained within are absurd. It does not reflect well on you or your party. We have serious problems facing our Commonwealth, serious problems that require serious people and serious solutions. Given your suggestion that a charity law that’s not about slots could somehow be used to create and/or justify casinos, I very much wonder what your constituents think you’re doing with all your time. I advise you reconsider your priorities as a public official and get to work on the very real and immediate problems we face.
Spent a good part of 2010 on this very issue, they will again this year. Nice though. I’m sure the representative can multi-task.
frivolous filings is very different than debating an issue. If Winslow wants to be the PT Barnum of the legislature with these unless stunts an OpEds it’s his prerogative but I think those who voted were looking for something else.
As a former judge, and esteemed lawyer he may just no something about the law. He has a major employer in his district in the plainridge track. He’s trying to find a way to save those jobs. I applaud him for it.
it would be astonishing to learn that slot machines have been legal all along in Massachusetts. I suppose anything is possible, but IMHO, Dan’s way off base on this one. Happens to the best of us.
legal that aren’t really there…
<
p>You’re in the bizarre position of boasting about your efforts to get in ‘under the radar’ by conflating businesses and charities… Doesn’t that seem even the tiniest bit strange to you? Or, perhaps, you’ve just always been extremely charitable when it comes to business? All this brainpower and imagination just to slip in sideways between the charities and the churches? Isn’t there more pressing problems elsewhere more deserving of your imagination and attention?
<
p>Why all this jumping through the hoops? Why all the smoke and mirrors? Why all the hoopla? You’ve as much as admitted that A) the state needs revenue and 2) you’re willing to impose a burden on people (not to mention the burden to legal clarity…) to generate that revenue?
<
p>So why don’t you cut out the middle man and just raise revenue through a tax? Why not just cut right through the gordian knot and move on to real problems? Is the thought of imposing a straight-up tax THAT much more onerous than all the work you’re doing to avoid it? Is it really? Are you really willing to impose a real burden on the poorest of us just to avoid (the largely intellectual) burden of a straight up tax?
Oooh, good one: “not wanting to teach kids that you can get something for nothing.” Man, that’s the definition of false hope. Totally corrosive — not just to kids! Adults are awfully impressionable, too. đŸ™‚
The lottery sends a bad “something for nothing” message to politicians, too, I might add.
I was a Scout leader for several years, and we could not have raffles, etc., for fundraising. Chance instead of work was frowned upon.
<
p>In real life, there IS no deus in the machina. Politicians looking at Federal funding streams, etc., need to hear that worse than anybody else.
We should just install a few slot machines in the statehouse, and fund everything from the revenue they generate.
more like “bootstrapping” than “intriguing?”
<
p>The Las Vegas Night statute allows “bazaars” to be held, but only by certain non-profits and only under certain conditions.
<
p>A “Bazaar” is defined in the statute as “a place maintained by the sponsoring organization for disposal by means of chance of one or both of the following types of prizes: (1) merchandise, of any value, (2) cash awards, not to exceed twenty-five dollars each.”
<
p>The Bazaar Republicans’ argument is that slot machines fit the definition of “bazaar” in the Las Vegas Night Statute.
<
p>Even if that argument holds up, how does it circumvent the numerous constraints on bazaars in the statute?
And merchandise prizes, under the charitable gaming law, are unlimited in value. Using electronic gift cards that add or deduct value depending on one’s winnings or losings, qualified charities would rotate every five hours as the recipients of net slot proceeds, up to three times per year. For example, a charity slot operation could benefit Charity A for 5 hours, then Charity B for 5 hours, then Charity C, etc. up to the three time/year annual limit. With hundreds of eligible charities in Massachusetts, there would be no shortage of qualified charities to sponsor the charity slots at a particular venue. Importantly, most public charities directly benefit human services and many of such organizations have been devastated by the recession. We can debate the merits of whether this approach to funding charities and human services is a good or bad idea, but wouldn’t you like to know the answer under the statute from the AG before we have that discussion? And if we can fund multi-millions of dollars for human services for veterans, battered women, homeless persons, etc., shouldn’t we at least take a look at our options?
that if someday there are slot machines at racetracks, the reason won’t be because it’s a chance for the state to permit the raising of money for the homeless in the form of $50 merchandise cards at Bed, Bath & Beyond.
<
p>On the other hand, if the Speaker sees any leverage for his real purpose to be had from this idea of inquiring of the AG, I’m sure a House committee will inquire.
“The promotion and operation of the raffle or bazaar shall be confined solely to the qualified members of the sponsoring organization”
<
p>And also, the law stipulates that bazaar can only last five consecutive hours, presumably that’s when the betting has to stop, not when the charity has to stop benefiting from it. These limits seem to be specifically in order to prevent the sort of permanent destination casino with jobs that you have in mind.
<
p>I do think tracks could boost their business by partnering with charities and hosting fundraisers, that part is a good idea.
<
p>The qualified members of the sponsoring organizaton! The members can be the croupiers, or whatever the slot equivalent.
<
p>I see it in Nurses Hall (charity!) or maybe outside the 4th floor cafeteria next to the MSECU ATM machine, a different type of game of chance!
<
p>THINK what we can rake off the tourists!
could bring slots around? It might be a way to increase participation in blood drives.
People have to give 1/4 pint for each try at the slots. They can play/donate until they lose consciousness.
Mischief like this is why the 1969 law should never have passed. The 1971 “Beano” statute is just as bad.
<
p>This is another political three-card monte scam — find a way to take even more money from the already-poor rather than compel the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share.
Hey lets do this, then lets do this, then lets do this… This is getting to be a comedy show. Maybe all those teens whose wages Repubs want to cut, can work at the tracks…they won’t be unionized and even if so, under their new Collective Bargaining ideas, the track owners can hire them as part-time workers and save on health insurance costs and not give them raises. Lets line Rep D’Emilia’s track owner friends pockets who are somehow entitled to slot profits for whatever reason. Of course all those who hang at the tracks, lose their money,and get behind on their mortgage won’t qualify for Winslows Mortgage Refinance Plan because they were not “Responsible” homeowners because they spent their money at the tracks instead of paying their mortgage!
<
p>A comprehensive gaming strategy is needed not some scheme to help track owners. This is a about revenue, jobs and keeping spending in MA that is going to other NE states. How does that happen at tracks? Gambling is going to exist, I accept that and we are losing out..I accept that. A casino resort is entertainment, just like Patriot Place, Six Flags or the Bruins (I tell you I spend more going to a Bruins game than I do at the casino). But we don’t need three of them with slots at tracks. It cant be sustained. As far as this idea above, if the charity gaming law was so effective you would see such events all over but there is a reason these are disappearing…lack of interest, low payouts, and crazy monitoring and reporting requirements…it’s nuts!!
I don’t believe either D’Emilia nor his opponent Lawton received any contributions from track owners. And both said they would do whatever they can to get jobs at the tracks including slots. Just to be fair…
What is the representative’s connection to slots?
<
p>Can you say, Pi-ont-kowski?
<
p>This about opening the flood gates or should we say horse gates for connected special interests to garner slot revenues from local losers. I think Porcupine is right on target that these proposals do not fly with any sound economic development model or work ethic whatsoever.
<
p>Side Bar (for the attorney’s benefit):
Who wants to start a betting pool on the number of times DW makes SHNS and Boston.com headlines with some flashy proposal….combining the substantive with the ridiculous for the grand prize drawing during his first year in the House? We could call it the “Winslow Watch” and donate the winnings to our favorite progressive causes. DW’s laughing….I know he’s loving the idea.
<
p>Speaking of media whores, I was watching the pompous Newt Gingrich on some stooo-pid ESPN golfing show (no I did not have a choice to change the channel) and thought to myself how very, very, very sad that this man is considered a potential candidate to be the leader of the United States of America…..it hurts to listen to and look at him.
<
p>Then in other news we have the craven capital of all things casiNO! on the east coast, the state of New Jersey, populated by rabid for revenue legislators, throwing it’s failing gambling industry heavenward and hoping for a miracle (since the casino thing hasn’t panned out) with proposals for internet gambling.
<
p>If anyone, anywhere can gamble from their own barcalounger in their boxers why go to a race track? Why put money in the damn gas tank when you can stay at home and reduce dependence on foreign oil?
<
p>But alas, to my dear Mass. Republican pro-gambling friends, “the man” Governor Christie says no to internet gambling. Do you know where those lawmakers wanted the (paltry $$$ compared to costs) revenue to go? To….get this! The horse racing industry. Can’t make this stuff up.
<
p>Why? Because it is a dying enterprise and they don’t want competition with slot barns at the tracks.